News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

robmausser said:
The issue is that VIA is and was never set up as an agency to construct and build rail corridors. Everything they have done so far was through CN/CP doing the work for them.

They simply don't have the ability or expertise to carry out the work and project scope. Changing VIA to be such would take years and waste even more time for getting HFR built.

But, taking the corridor and operations off their hands is a bit of an odd one. I was certain after its construction operations would be handed over to VIA.

My assumption is that private partners do not want to bid on a project without having their hands in the operations, or if they aren't involved they will significantly increase the costs of the capital works.

Companies are all about providing a service they can bill monthly for versus one large project that ends.
Click to expand...
I wish they could accomplish something where the private sector partner took over construction but not operations, in return for land grants or station site development rights etc. There are billions if not tens of billions of property appreciation that will be captured by landowners around station locations if HFR gets built.
 
kEiThZ said:
www.railwayage.com

Canada to Create Separate Railway for Corridor HFR (Updated November 11) - Railway Age

Transport Canada confirmed Oct. 31 that state corporation VIA Rail Canada has been shunted aside from its own project to construct and operate an electrified “High Frequency Rail” (HFR) service along the Corridor linking Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto—the only profitable route VIA...
www.railwayage.com www.railwayage.com
Click to expand...
Wow; a new and sort-of separate entity to operate both HFR and existing/remaining corridor services. No more book-juggling to have the corridor help pay for the rest of the network. I don't know if that will bode ill or well for the rest of the network, or possibly set it up for downloading to the provinces.
 
^ As much as Garneau’s departure was not explained (personnel changes at the top rarely are), ….. it’s not hard to invent the conspiracy theory : you’re a CEO grade talent, hired to lead a large organization that has a huge growth initiative on its horizon…..then after coming on board, you discover the owner’s intention is to hive off the largest revenue part of the business, and the growth scenario, to a new company with its own CEO…… leaving you with some smaller pieces that have far less scope and far less growth/success potential……. doesn’t take a law degree to figure out where that leaves you.

I’m not a fan of this new mode of state-building where all government aspires to is the writing of cheques, leaving all the execution to contractors. Seems to me the country is better served by having well-run public institutions more directly accountable to the voters, and with that accountability less shrouded by ministerial privilege. However, the trend is happening at all levels so it’s not really a surprise that it’s happening to VIA.

I lived through a couple of “tear up your business cards and re-apply for your job” organizational transitions, and I can’t say they are a silver bullet. Huge amount of transitional work, during which time people lose focus altogether. Lawyers and TC staff must be gleeful at the meal ticket that comes with incorporating a new entity and certifying it as a railway. Probably a talent firm or two getting royalties from hiring the new executive and managerial team. Certainly not respectful of the VIA workforce and hierarchy, who I would give good marks for professionalism and performance….. and who made plenty of sacrifices over the years in the belief that it would lead to VIA as a success story.

- Paul
 
LemonCondo said:
It would make more sense to set up a new company to build, own, and operate the new railway, and let VIA use it.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. There is the issue of duplication of the entire corporate functions - law, finance, regulatory relations, reservations and ticketing. There is a need for shared use of the TMC and MMC, not to mention Toronto Union and Montreal Central stations.

Both systems need interfaces with the host railways for the trackage that they will not be owning. Will the terms of their commercial agreements with CP and CN allow them to share information with each other? Today, all of VIA can know the details of all service agreements. In the future, the two organizations could be played against each other.

Similarly, where today there is one VIA integrated safety system, with interface with Transport Canada, in the future there will be two. The potential for disjointed right hand/left hand communications is considerable.

If this is simply about keeping the books straight -a single competent finance unit can accomplish both under one roof. While people have disagreed how the accounting should work, today's VIA manages to track all costs competently and allocate them according to some model.

Assuming that VIA Long Distance becomes a tenant in Toronto and Montreal, there will need to be cost accounting and cost sharing arrangements between the two entities anyways.

I can understand why marketing might need two separate offices, as product offerings and pricings will differ. Similarly, Operations might need some specialisation...as would the fleet managers.

There are likely places where VIA's organization is already divided into "Corridor" and "Long Distance" teams..... but the split just creates duplication.

I suspect I am shouting at clouds, because a) the decision appears to be final and b) it is likely necessary because the P3 for the Corridor would become harder to sell if the proponent had to run the long distance business as well. But.... I don't think it's fair to characterise this change as simpler or better. It may just have to be as part of the exercise to deliver a HFR P3.

- Paul
 
Outsourcing risk isn't limited to governments. It is probably more prevalent in government because a missed date or cost overrun is more public, but in most organizations outside government there are people who would rather hand off risk to an outside team than to take full ownership of creating a functional team that delivers efficiently. The bigger the project, the greater the outsourcing... but to some degree it has to be that way because the big project requires far more people of different skill sets than operations does.
 
SaugeenJunction said:
Canada's Fall Economic Statement has a line on page 63 titled "Investing in VIA Rail Trains and Infrastructure". Not exactly sure what projects it is referring to.
Click to expand...

The amounts are pretty modest - over the 5 years, they are 2M - 2M - 14M - 14M - 14M

A few lines higher, "Further Support for the Wine Sector" has been given a much bigger amount.

- Paul

PS - Hey, I'm doing my part.....
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
The amounts are pretty modest - over the 5 years, they are 2M - 2M - 14M - 14M - 14M
Click to expand...

It's new spending since last Spring 2022.

The Hudson Bay Railway (northern Manitoba) rebuild announced in August included a federal contribution of $60M from the federal government. It may have 2 years of engineering then 4 years of construction. The amounts match if you add a 6th year to the table at $14M.
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
It's new spending since last Spring 2022.

The Hudson Bay Railway (northern Manitoba) rebuild announced in August included a federal contribution of $60M from the federal government. It may have 2 years of engineering then 4 years of construction. The amounts match if you add a 6th year to the table at $14M.
Click to expand...
Possible, but why would you call such a budget item "Investing in VIA Rail Trains and Infrastructure"?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top